Go to VarLinux for details (or look at SCOX on yahoo, or similar).

Basically, IBM has countersued SCO. And they've targeted EVERY product
SCO sells.

SCO OpenServer has been attacked with patents
Unixware has been attacked with patents
SCO's other last remaining product has been attacked with patents

And SCO Openlinux has had the clause 4 nuke fired at it. IBM have
alleged SCO are in breach of the GPL and can no longer distribute linux!

They have also gone for a temporary injunction - you know - the one that
says "this case needs to be heard quickly, because the defendant can do
a lot of damage very quickly if they aren't stopped" :-) (ie the one
that SCO carefully *avoided* going for when they terminated IBM's AIX
licence).

Cheers,
Wol

"Anthony W. Youngman" <thewolery> writes:

> Go to VarLinux for details (or look at SCOX on yahoo, or similar).

Here's a good place to follow these things:
<http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/>.

No surprise in the action, IMHO. They're saying that the whole SCO
lawsuit is bogus for the expected reasons, and throwing in a few bits
of IBM's enormous patent portfolio to show that SCO is violating some
of IBM's patents (presumably everyone else on the planet is, too).

In article <pGPdKWAGhtM$EwRn>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "Anthony W. Youngman" <thewolery> wrote:
> Go to VarLinux for details (or look at SCOX on yahoo, or similar).
>
> Basically, IBM has countersued SCO. And they've targeted EVERY product
> SCO sells.

Ah, the things you can do when you have the budget for a heavyweight
legal department. One would presume they've been working hard on
preparing that since the shenanigans started.

> And SCO Openlinux has had the clause 4 nuke fired at it. IBM have
> alleged SCO are in breach of the GPL and can no longer distribute linux!

They already stopped that, didn't they? AFAICS the lawyers are part
of an exit strategy from a company that didn't see itself with a future
trying to compete in a field that's being commoditised. Mind you, M$'s
XP licensing looked a bit like that too, and they've still got a massive
cach cow.

> They have also gone for a temporary injunction - you know - the one that
> says "this case needs to be heard quickly, because the defendant can do
> a lot of damage very quickly if they aren't stopped" :-)

The difference is, IBM *does* have ongoing business it values above
any such exit strategy.

nick (Nick Kew) writes:

[...]

> They already stopped that, didn't they?

You'd have thought that would be a good move, and would be easy to do
quite quickly, but apparently it's *still* on their ftp site:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/32233.html>

[...]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nick Kew wrote:
>
>>And SCO Openlinux has had the clause 4 nuke fired at it. IBM have
>>alleged SCO are in breach of the GPL and can no longer distribute linux!
>> They already stopped that, didn't they?

Sounds like they still intend to distribute patches to existing customers.

Which as I pointed out, and others had already realised, is still a GPL
breech. The GPL doesn't exempt you just because it is your own copyright
you copylefted unintentionally. There is a certain irony, that by
claiming their own copyrighted work is in the code, the first people who
are likely to be unable to serve existing customers are SCO.

Anyway it is looking more like a last push by the current board to grab
money from their stock options, or force a takeover.

But since SCO has virtually nothing of value to IBM, I don't think IBM
will want to buy it. On the other hand IBM might pick up vast chunks
when the legal dust settles.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Nick Kew wrote:

> > And SCO Openlinux has had the clause 4 nuke fired at it. IBM have
> > alleged SCO are in breach of the GPL and can no longer distribute linux!
>
> They already stopped that, didn't they?

They stopped selling boxed sets however they continue to distribute Linux
via their website.

In this respect SCO are now screwed whichever way they turn - they are in
voilation of the GPL due to their actions attacking Linux however they
will also be in violation of the GPL if they stop making the source
available less than two years after they stop making the binaries
available.

In either case they may be liable for damages as a result of the breach.

Jason Clifford

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Simon Waters wrote:

> But since SCO has virtually nothing of value to IBM, I don't think IBM
> will want to buy it. On the other hand IBM might pick up vast chunks
> when the legal dust settles.

Well if IBM were to pick up the rights to "UNIX" they could get some
vengance on Sun who have been backing SCO in the attacks on IBM and Linux
from what I've read.

Jason Clifford

nick (Nick Kew) wrote in message news:b1ln
> In article <pGPdKWAGhtM$EwRn>, one of infinite monkeys
> at the keyboard of "Anthony W. Youngman" <thewolery> wrote:
>
> > And SCO Openlinux has had the clause 4 nuke fired at it. IBM have
> > alleged SCO are in breach of the GPL and can no longer distribute linux!
>
> They already stopped that, didn't they? AFAICS the lawyers are part
> of an exit strategy from a company that didn't see itself with a future
> trying to compete in a field that's being commoditised. Mind you, M$'s
> XP licensing looked a bit like that too, and they've still got a massive
> cach cow.
>
Actually, they're still distributing linux. From their ftp server. And
IBM, no doubt, has pointed that out. I'm still trying to get a copy of
the filing.

And I had a "doh" moment last night. We've been wondering why IBM was
keeping so quiet beyond making the minimal response possible to SCO's
claims. I seriously suspect that IBM *desperately* *want* to nail SCO
with this nuke, and were waiting for them to provide the ammo. NICE.

So the GPL is going to be tested in court, backed by a friendly party
to whom money is no object. I don't think we'll be seeing much more
"but the GPL is toothless" fud in the future.

Cheers,
Wol

On Friday 08 August 2003 9:52 am in uk.comp.os.linux Jason Clifford wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Simon Waters wrote:
>
>> But since SCO has virtually nothing of value to IBM, I don't think IBM
>> will want to buy it. On the other hand IBM might pick up vast chunks
>> when the legal dust settles.
>
> Well if IBM were to pick up the rights to "UNIX" they could get some
> vengance on Sun who have been backing SCO in the attacks on IBM and Linux
> from what I've read.

Not true, unless you define inaction as backing.

Basically Sun have an irrevokable Unix licence purchased from AT&T
many years ago which gives them the right to do whatever they
please with the code. This nice secure position allows them to
sit on the fence and laugh at the discomfiture of their
competitors.

Why take sides when your competitors are clawing eachother to pieces ?.

"Anthony W. Youngman" <thewolery> writes:

> Go to VarLinux for details (or look at SCOX on yahoo, or similar).
>
> Basically, IBM has countersued SCO. And they've targeted EVERY product
> SCO sells.
>
> SCO OpenServer has been attacked with patents
> Unixware has been attacked with patents
> SCO's other last remaining product has been attacked with patents
>
> And SCO Openlinux has had the clause 4 nuke fired at it. IBM have
> alleged SCO are in breach of the GPL and can no longer distribute linux!

What's interesting is that in each case they've nominated just one
patent. I'm sure, knowing the depth of IBM's patent arsenal, they're
keeping a lot of powder dry. I am completely opposed to software
patents, but I'm _very_ glad IBM is on our side in this case.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Nick Kew yowled:
> In article <pGPdKWAGhtM$EwRn>, one of infinite monkeys
> at the keyboard of "Anthony W. Youngman" <thewolery> wrote:
>> Go to VarLinux for details (or look at SCOX on yahoo, or similar).
>>
>> Basically, IBM has countersued SCO. And they've targeted EVERY product
>> SCO sells.
>
> Ah, the things you can do when you have the budget for a heavyweight
> legal department. One would presume they've been working hard on
> preparing that since the shenanigans started.

More than that. They've been noting what SCO has said as it screamed to
the press, and made the contents of many of those screams part of their
case. (e.g. the `trade libel' bit).

It's so helpful of SCO to hand IBM so much ammunition, really...